Fullness of Holy Orders...first

[Aramis]

The Pope is not, simply, above canon law. Yes, there are allowances for dispensations, changes, etc. But parts of canon law, for instance, are divine laws which the Pope is certainly not above.

Those parts are not the code of canon law, either. Those are part of the Deposit of Faith, a separate issue. When the two conflict, per canon law, the Deposit of faith is supposed to win.

Canon Law reflects the deposit of faith, at least in as much as many of the restrictions therein are derived from the deposit of faith.

The Pope is above canon law, since he is the source of canon law. Our last two popes have seen to it that Holy Tradition (which they ARE subject to, themselves) is reflected in Canon law.

 

[diggerdomer]

Those parts are not the code of canon law, either. Those are part of the Deposit of Faith, a separate issue. When the two conflict, per canon law, the Deposit of faith is supposed to win.

Canon Law reflects the deposit of faith, at least in as much as many of the restrictions therein are derived from the deposit of faith.

The Pope is above canon law, since he is the source of canon law. Our last two popes have seen to it that Holy Tradition (which they ARE subject to, themselves) is reflected in Canon law.

Canon Law is part of Tradition. It can’t conflict with the deposit of faith, they’re both part of Tradition. If it conflicted with some part of the faith, the Church would not have included it in Canon Law. I don’t know where Canon Law talks about the deposit of faith “winning” a conflict with canon law.

To suggest the Pope is above canon law since he is the source is the same as suggesting Congress (or the President, or the Supreme Court) is above the Constitution because they can change/revoke laws. Or that the Church is above Scripture because the Scriptures were authored and canon formed by the Church (yes, of course, also by God).

 

[bpbasilphx]

Isn’t there historical precedent in the case of the Apostles for a more comprehensive ordination?

---

**No.

It seems you want to think so, though.**

 

[Digitonomy]

Canon Law is part of Tradition. It can’t conflict with the deposit of faith, they’re both part of Tradition. If it conflicted with some part of the faith, the Church would not have included it in Canon Law.

I won’t wade into your more specific argument, but the general point you’ve made here is a bit naive. In almost any system of law there will tension and conflict between various laws (canons in this case). The more common ones will have been addressed explicitly within the system of laws, but less common situations will arise where two principles, and the laws reflecting those principles, are in conflict. Then it’s the job of the administrator or the court to decide which law outweighs the other.

If we concede that Canon Law, like any other system of law, can be in conflict with itself at times, surely it is possible for it to conflict with a second system outside of it.

 

[Digitonomy]

"Digitonomy:

Isn’t there historical precedent in the case of the Apostles for a more comprehensive ordination?

No.
It seems you want to think so, though.

Discussing the issue rather than my desires might be more productive.

You said, a person can’t be ordained to the fullness of Holy Orders in one fell swoop.

I said, yes he can. As precedent, consider the Apostles, where exactly that happened.

Your response: No.

Are you saying no, the Apostles were not ordained to the fullness of Holy Orders?
Are you saying no, the Apostles were ordained in multiple steps?
Are you saying no, the Apostles aren’t a precedent because their Holy Orders were somehow different from current bishops?

Please elaborate on what you mean by “No.”

 

[Spirithound]

Discussing the issue rather than my desires might be more productive.

You said, a person can’t be ordained to the fullness of Holy Orders in one fell swoop.

I said, yes he can. As precedent, consider the Apostles, where exactly that happened.

Your response: No.

Are you saying no, the Apostles were not ordained to the fullness of Holy Orders?
Are you saying no, the Apostles were ordained in multiple steps?
Are you saying no, the Apostles aren’t a precedent because their Holy Orders were somehow different from current bishops?

Please elaborate on what you mean by “No.”

I wonder if when Jesus sent out the 72, He was ordaining them to the diaconate? The ministry of baptism and preaching seems similar.

 

[diggerdomer]

I won’t wade into your more specific argument, but the general point you’ve made here is a bit naive. In almost any system of law there will tension and conflict between various laws (canons in this case). The more common ones will have been addressed explicitly within the system of laws, but less common situations will arise where two principles, and the laws reflecting those principles, are in conflict. Then it’s the job of the administrator or the court to decide which law outweighs the other.

Yes of course, but needing such a decision does NOT mean parts of canon law are in conflict with the faith. That’s the claim I was responding to.

 

[Just_Lurking]

From the Catholic Encyclopedia (see here):

For the subdiaconate and the higher orders there is, moreover, required a title, i.e., the right to receive maintenance from a determined source. Again, the candidate must observe the interstices, or times required to elapse between the reception of variousorders; he must also have received confirmation and the lower orders preceding the one to which he is raised. This last requirement does not affect the validity of the order conferred, as every order gives a distinct and independent power. One exception is made by the majority of theologians and canonists, who are of opinion that episcopal consecration requires the previous reception of priest’s orders for its validity. Others, however, maintain that episcopal power includes full priestly power, which is thus conferred by episcopal consecration. They appeal to history and bring forward cases of bishops who were consecrated without having previously received priest’s orders, and though most of the cases are somewhat doubtful and can be explained on other grounds, it seems impossible to reject them all. It is further to be remembered that scholastic theologians mostly required the previous reception of priest’s orders for valid episcopal consecration, because they did not consider episcopacy an order, a view which is now generally abandoned.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

From the Catholic Encyclopedia (see here):

For the subdiaconate and the higher orders there is, moreover, required a title, i.e., the right to receive maintenance from a determined source. Again, the candidate must observe the interstices, or times required to elapse between the reception of variousorders; he must also have received confirmation and the lower orders preceding the one to which he is raised. This last requirement does not affect the validity of the order conferred, as every order gives a distinct and independent power. One exception is made by the majority of theologians and canonists, who are of opinion that episcopal consecration requires the previous reception of priest’s orders for its validity. Others, however, maintain that episcopal power includes full priestly power, which is thus conferred by episcopal consecration. They appeal to history and bring forward cases of bishops who were consecrated without having previously received priest’s orders, and though most of the cases are somewhat doubtful and can be explained on other grounds, it seems impossible to reject them all. It is further to be remembered that scholastic theologians mostly required the previous reception of priest’s orders for valid episcopal consecration, because they did not consider episcopacy an order, a view which is now generally abandoned.

Note that the Encyclopedia is over 100 years old and out of date on some subjects. Sub-deacon is no longer regarded as an order in the Western Church. “Permanent” deacons do not receive maintenance.

 

[Spirithound]

he must also have received confirmation and the lower orders preceding the one to which he is raised. This last requirement does not affect the validity of the order conferred, as every order gives a distinct and independent power.

Now, would this imply that a man who is ordained a priest, but not a deacon, is in fact not a deacon?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Now, would this imply that a man who is ordained a priest, but not a deacon, is in fact not a deacon?

No man is ordained to the priesthood with out first being ordained to the diaconate.

From the Code of Canon Law (note the added bold emphasis)

Can. 1031 §1 The priesthood may be conferred only upon those who have completed their twenty-fifth year of age, and possess a sufficient maturity; moreover, an interval of at least six months between the diaconate and the priesthood must have been observed. Those who are destined for the priesthood are to be admitted to the order of diaconate only when they have completed their twenty-third year.

 

[Digitonomy]

No man is ordained to the priesthood with out first being ordained to the diaconate.

From the Code of Canon Law (note the added bold emphasis)

This is true for licit ordinations of Catholic priests in the present day. Such a waiting period has not always and everywhere been observed.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

This is true for licit ordinations of Catholic priests in the present day. Such a waiting period has not always and everywhere been observed.

I was posting that to show that one must be ordained a deacon before priestly ordination.

The waiting period may be dispensed from by the proper authority and that ordination would be licit.

 

[Digitonomy]

I was posting that to show that one must be ordained a deacon before priestly ordination.

Yes, that is longstanding practice within the Catholic Church. Would you claim that in other denominations with valid orders, and in earlier times, direct ordination to the priesthood (skipping the diaconate) was invalid?

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Yes, that is longstanding practice within the Catholic Church. Would you claim that in other denominations with valid orders, and in earlier times, direct ordination to the priesthood (skipping the diaconate) was invalid?

I would note that the apostles created the diaconate.

1 Now in these days when the disciples were increasing in number, the Hellenists murmured against the Hebrews because their widows were neglected in the daily distribution. 2 And the twelve summoned the body of the disciples and said, “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables. 3 Therefore, brethren, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may appoint to this duty. 4 But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.”

Acts 6:1-5 Thus the apostles, Mathias and possibly others became priests and bishops before there was a diaconate. Thus the diaconate as a requirment for ordination to priesthood must be a disciplinary law, not a Divine Command, i.e. it is not integral to the sacrament. Therefore it can be wived or altered as circumstances require.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Yes, that is longstanding practice within the Catholic Church. Would you claim that in other denominations with valid orders, and in earlier times, direct ordination to the priesthood (skipping the diaconate) was invalid?

I have not studied the theology of Holy Orders so I do not feel qualified to answer this question but my gut instinct is that I would have (and do have) a question about it.